1 00:00:00,017 --> 00:00:08,549 It's entertainment law update episode 149 for September 28 2020. 2 00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:14,480 Music. 3 00:00:14,361 --> 00:00:21,557 Hello, hello, and welcome to another episode of Entertainment Law update from Los Angeles, California, I am Gordon Firemark. 4 00:00:21,788 --> 00:00:26,724 Hey I'm from the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex I'm Tamara Bennett and we are so glad that you were here for, 5 00:00:26,910 --> 00:00:37,779 Today's episode this is the podcast about entertainment law where each month we pull together a round up of legal and business news stories and share opinions and commentary and analysis and just try to have a 6 00:00:37,578 --> 00:00:44,765 Sort of a good time with everything. How you doing? 7 00:00:45,194 --> 00:00:49,041 To get through the intro but we're here today and we're ready. 8 00:00:49,254 --> 00:00:59,114 It was the third time and thank you for outing me. Okay, sorry. 9 00:00:59,201 --> 00:01:03,579 I'm doing great i'm doing great getting ready for big trip to Europe 10 00:01:03,505 --> 00:01:16,687 I'm getting ready for a big trip to Europe. Super excited about that. We are going to be in Austria for a few days in Barcelona for a few days and then we're doing a trans Atlantic cruise. Oh, wow. 11 00:01:17,161 --> 00:01:28,381 So that'll be fun. I know it'll be itch. I hope so. It should be. It it should be a blast. So, very excited. We we've had the trip plan for over a year and then, 12 00:01:28,792 --> 00:01:36,780 Tacked on the Austria part once we knew Brock was moving to Austria. So, 13 00:01:36,930 --> 00:01:45,773 Voyage. 14 00:01:45,887 --> 00:01:58,484 No conception. Oh, wow. 15 00:01:58,535 --> 00:02:06,973 A year there and the year was punctuated by a birth so. 16 00:02:07,475 --> 00:02:21,530 New things I never knew about Gordon Firemark. For all the good it does me. I guess if I wanted to pay taxes in England as well as the US I could. 17 00:02:21,644 --> 00:02:25,716 Well, enough about how I was conceived. 18 00:02:26,469 --> 00:02:38,787 Oh my goodness. Well, we haven't interesting rundown of stories this this month and let's just jump right into it. 19 00:02:38,974 --> 00:02:47,655 Spencer Elvin Spencer is the baby you may remember who appeared on the cover of the Nirvana album, 20 00:02:47,769 --> 00:03:02,337 Never mind, 21 00:03:02,361 --> 00:03:04,534 Of the 91 never mind album. 22 00:03:04,729 --> 00:03:17,281 Over the cover that featured the picture of him naked as an infant. 23 00:03:17,386 --> 00:03:25,905 And in response to defense noted that he had suffered no injury in fact he had spoken positively of his experience while finding numerous ways to, 24 00:03:25,920 --> 00:03:30,370 Capitalize on monetize his fame as the Nirvana baby, 25 00:03:30,521 --> 00:03:43,550 And they moved to dismiss the case on statute limitation grounds arguing that he hadn't filed his lawsuit within 10 years of his 18th birthday the date on which the statute of limitations begins for these kinds of childborn artifie claims. 26 00:03:43,547 --> 00:03:45,467 He initially missed the deadline, 27 00:03:45,500 --> 00:03:54,956 To respond but the court late until respond to the motion. Excuse me, but the court later let him remit the filings to address that issue on the statue of limitations. 28 00:03:54,773 --> 00:04:03,328 And in the new filings he argued that I'm doing exploitation of the album cover and resulting injury, 29 00:04:03,469 --> 00:04:16,192 And in the courts view dismissing the case they said no that theory would basically allow them to sue the defendants forever in perpetuity and the gate the entire purpose of having a statue of limitations so, 30 00:04:16,216 --> 00:04:21,602 He has set the intense to appeal the dismissal to the ninth circuit we haven't yet seen that appeal filed but. 31 00:04:22,716 --> 00:04:27,706 You know, for now, it's over. Nirvana has succeeded. What are your thoughts? 32 00:04:30,170 --> 00:04:36,078 I mean I think there is a real statue of limitations issue, 33 00:04:36,381 --> 00:04:48,420 We've discussed this multiple times over the last year as the case has been proceeding on all kinds of other issues regarding the child pornography with there be such an album cover today, 34 00:04:48,552 --> 00:04:49,788 No. 35 00:04:49,867 --> 00:04:58,620 Right? 36 00:04:59,274 --> 00:05:01,761 Takes it up and feels like there so, 37 00:05:02,101 --> 00:05:09,809 Hey issue that needs to be resolved on the statue limitations because they didn't make a ruling on the other issues attempt to mine knowledge they just. 38 00:05:10,275 --> 00:05:15,130 Kicked it out for that. 39 00:05:15,262 --> 00:05:30,101 As expeditiously as possible and then the statue of limitations is a fast and and. 40 00:05:30,719 --> 00:05:39,652 Rereleasing something or those kind of we just have to say enough stop. 41 00:05:40,306 --> 00:05:48,699 We'll see. Okay, I could not, 42 00:05:49,074 --> 00:05:54,704 Obviously famous Quentin Tarantino film. 43 00:05:55,745 --> 00:06:04,597 John Travolta. 44 00:06:05,207 --> 00:06:14,833 Hey. 45 00:06:15,460 --> 00:06:20,081 I don't know that I made it to the end. It is a very, 46 00:06:20,213 --> 00:06:28,921 Like many Tarantina films it's a very full of violence and and I want to gore but there's a you know a lot of stuff that sort of hard to look at, 47 00:06:29,009 --> 00:06:37,897 Yeah. Yeah, there was a lot of stuff hard to look at. If I did make it to the end, I would never watched it a second. So, anyway, 48 00:06:37,876 --> 00:06:45,126 Tying 1996 to 2022 are non-funishable tokens NFTs. 49 00:06:45,546 --> 00:06:50,464 There you go. 50 00:06:50,488 --> 00:06:59,592 Own the car owns the copyright to the screenplay Miramax who released the film owns the copyright to the movie to the film 51 00:06:59,580 --> 00:07:08,702 In November of 21 tarantino made a public announcement saying he was gonna release NFTs from politician the film. 52 00:07:09,888 --> 00:07:18,434 Which, 53 00:07:18,764 --> 00:07:22,836 He probably didn't own those any replace those with some more generic. 54 00:07:23,364 --> 00:07:38,284 Images and when she may have had the ownership anyway the details of the agreement are not disclosed but there has been a settlement between the two parties and that they're going to collaborate on future projects I think Terrantino was hanging this on the phone, 55 00:07:38,308 --> 00:07:45,180 That his grant. 56 00:07:46,113 --> 00:07:48,808 Yeah what's the name of tea is it 57 00:07:48,598 --> 00:08:06,353 Yeah. 58 00:08:06,710 --> 00:08:13,258 Kind of a tidbit, quick take, interesting thing to think about is what is that relationship when they're, 59 00:08:13,291 --> 00:08:22,395 Hey which is often the case with NFTs there are multiple copyright owners involved in what's going to be released, 60 00:08:22,761 --> 00:08:28,084 Print it as an FT. 61 00:08:28,865 --> 00:08:38,167 I'm of the perception that the NFT. 62 00:08:38,740 --> 00:08:48,403 And there's still there going strong but. 63 00:08:50,290 --> 00:08:56,063 People now understate people who are trying to seriously do this now, 64 00:08:56,097 --> 00:09:06,461 This is harder than licensing a piece of music. 65 00:09:06,908 --> 00:09:12,817 Required to in different places to go secure those rights. 66 00:09:13,111 --> 00:09:25,393 Yeah, 67 00:09:25,570 --> 00:09:31,253 Other kinds of issues come up in the NFT space. I think this isn't the last we've heard of it. 68 00:09:31,250 --> 00:09:38,716 Not on this case in particular but these kinds of issues about infringements within NFTs and and, 69 00:09:39,028 --> 00:09:51,364 Not just copyrights but trademarks and rights of privacy and publicity as well other other kinds of stuff have a lot of potential here. I think there's a lot of variety of publicity issues. I mean that's where I've kind of, 70 00:09:51,605 --> 00:09:56,829 Projects I've seen or or heard of is you know it's, 71 00:09:57,105 --> 00:10:11,142 Well, I always give the example. Let's go back to almost to 1996 but early June 2 thousands where I received a phone call from a person. 72 00:10:12,409 --> 00:10:23,566 Interesting. 73 00:10:23,491 --> 00:10:25,096 Real to real or 74 00:10:25,075 --> 00:10:39,229 Alright. Doesn't mean he owned the recordings. Yeah. And just because you might be in possession of a picture of Alvis doesn't mean you own. Now, this is right of publicity. 75 00:10:39,488 --> 00:10:47,773 But yeah all kind of people are trying to then take these things that they have physical possession and somehow think they can turn it into an NFT 76 00:10:47,653 --> 00:10:57,171 And not have to get a license. 77 00:10:57,096 --> 00:11:02,320 Similar issues, you know, yeah, you've got the physical possession of the of the article, but. 78 00:11:02,885 --> 00:11:07,686 You know, you can't use Elvis' likeness for commercial game without some help from, 79 00:11:07,755 --> 00:11:17,237 Other people. 80 00:11:17,153 --> 00:11:29,732 Or maybe. 81 00:11:29,846 --> 00:11:37,222 Music entertainment, 82 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:44,208 It was really 2010. Gosh, long time. 12 years since he's gone. Okay. Well, more than toys. 83 00:11:44,502 --> 00:11:58,485 They were planning to release this posturous album containing these unreleased vocal tracks allegedly made by the singer Michael Jackson 84 00:11:58,456 --> 00:12:04,832 Jackson's mother, several of his brothers, two of his children, some nephews, and a couple of former music producers. 85 00:12:04,820 --> 00:12:10,557 Raise some doubts about whether or not three of these recordings were actually Michael Jackson's voice. 86 00:12:11,338 --> 00:12:21,603 And Sony and an attorney for the estate fired back with a letter that said, 87 00:12:21,951 --> 00:12:27,995 A long way before my musical director and former musical vocal director forensic music colleges that they they. 88 00:12:28,487 --> 00:12:36,142 Got their experts to say they believe that it was in fact Michael Jackson's voice on these disputed tracks. So they moved forward with release. 89 00:12:36,292 --> 00:12:45,864 And an album cover that stated on the back this album contains nine previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson. 90 00:12:46,285 --> 00:12:50,005 A long comes vira sarova, 91 00:12:50,309 --> 00:12:59,098 Album allegedly relying on that album cover and a commercial for the album and statements from the Jackson family friend made an episode of Oprah, 92 00:12:59,455 --> 00:13:10,621 And the letter from the estate all of which directly or indirectly stated that Jackson had indeed selling these vocals on these tracks. 93 00:13:11,464 --> 00:13:19,668 Audio expert to analyze the tracks and that expert said it's very likely that it wasn't him on the tracks. Okay, so I just have to interject here. Yeah. 94 00:13:19,998 --> 00:13:28,913 What person decides I should go higher an audio expert to figure this out. 95 00:13:29,099 --> 00:13:40,103 Hey that's what I just I made some I was making assumptions that somebody did this with the sole purpose of we're going to save. 96 00:13:40,514 --> 00:13:44,181 Not to cast dispersions on this plane if miss Arova but, 97 00:13:44,457 --> 00:13:52,031 She asserted that, you know, the family, friend, knew the Jackson wasn't the vocalist, you know, so why would you buy the thing if you had suspicions? 98 00:13:52,199 --> 00:13:55,848 Unless you are planning on suing and why would you go investigating, 99 00:13:55,908 --> 00:14:07,857 Yeah. The recordings are the albums are. 100 00:14:08,223 --> 00:14:14,357 Poor quality, 101 00:14:14,669 --> 00:14:20,586 Sony was advertising this falsely which is, you know, okay, fair enough that, 102 00:14:20,835 --> 00:14:34,936 The whole fact situation seems a little peculiar. Anyway, Vera Sarova is the plaintiff now in a putitive class action lawsuit on behalf of California purchasers of the disputed tracks. Alleging violations of the consumer legal remedies act. 103 00:14:35,041 --> 00:14:45,937 And unfair competition law here in California for the marketing of these disputed songs, 104 00:14:46,024 --> 00:14:56,919 Directly with those statements made on the Oprah show and indirectly through the deception of Sony so Sony has filed a motion to strike under California's anti-slap statute. 105 00:14:56,961 --> 00:15:06,858 And, 106 00:15:07,035 --> 00:15:15,527 By the anti-slap statute she zoning further argued that the consumer deception claims like merit because the speech was non commercial. 107 00:15:15,902 --> 00:15:30,390 Jackson didn't sing the disputed crack tracks were correct, 108 00:15:30,504 --> 00:15:32,037 Granted the motion 109 00:15:32,034 --> 00:15:44,739 Holding that the letter from Jackson's estate was non-commercial and not subject to the consumer protection laws and, 110 00:15:44,764 --> 00:15:46,099 So Sonia Peels. 111 00:15:46,573 --> 00:15:59,755 Sarova did not but so the estate letters no longer part of the dispute but Tony appeals and the intermediate court held that the album cover statement and commercial were more than just pure commercial speech and therefore not subject to consumer regulation statutes. 112 00:16:00,526 --> 00:16:06,867 So, while the case is going on, the California Supreme Court decided another case dealing with first Amendment and corporate speech. 113 00:16:06,927 --> 00:16:16,823 So it sent to that case back down to the intermediate court would you reach the same conclusion as it did the first time. 114 00:16:17,496 --> 00:16:29,814 After returning to the the California Supreme Court Sony notified the court that a settlement had been reached but later Sarova informed the court that the settlement wasn't finalized and asked the court to continue the analysis. 115 00:16:30,522 --> 00:16:35,710 Strange. 116 00:16:36,265 --> 00:16:41,094 Attorneys. 117 00:16:41,910 --> 00:16:50,591 Wanted the court to reach an opinion, 118 00:16:50,624 --> 00:17:05,544 There we go. Anyway, so the court has held now that commercial speech can certainly be limited or entirely prohibited. In order to safeguard the flow of accurate information to consumers, 119 00:17:05,685 --> 00:17:11,260 You know the the idea that commercial speech can be more easily verifiable by the disseminator. 120 00:17:11,446 --> 00:17:18,381 Likely know has more information, 121 00:17:18,450 --> 00:17:24,782 Interesting, 122 00:17:24,887 --> 00:17:32,532 And the speech of issue in question is commercial speech when you look at the three elements the speaker the intended audience and the content, 123 00:17:32,584 --> 00:17:40,824 The speaker is Sony. They're promoting an album for sale, the intended audiences, the potential purchasers for the album and the content is the statements 124 00:17:40,794 --> 00:17:46,075 Which appear to be traditional advertising kinds of context. So, the court noted. 125 00:17:46,192 --> 00:17:50,168 Further that the album is an expressive work but, 126 00:17:50,327 --> 00:17:52,401 When it's a product for sale, 127 00:17:52,569 --> 00:18:06,030 That that's a factor as well and the statements that issue were not inextricably intertwined with the expressive work, 128 00:18:06,045 --> 00:18:15,824 Sales material for the album so Sony also tried to argue it was unaware of the possibility that it's statements and indications that Jackson was in fact the singer could be false, 129 00:18:16,155 --> 00:18:17,373 And the court said. 130 00:18:18,072 --> 00:18:27,176 Lack of knowledge doesn't make the speech non-commercial so sort of a strict liability if you make a misleading statement even though you didn't realize it was misleading you can be held liable. 131 00:18:28,254 --> 00:18:30,021 Yeah. 132 00:18:30,684 --> 00:18:38,528 Hey so I was wondering why this didn't get filed as like a federal trade commission, 133 00:18:38,732 --> 00:18:44,380 Advertising and and then my brain kicked in and realized there's no. 134 00:18:46,996 --> 00:18:53,031 For the for the individual playing to if they go that route. 135 00:18:53,829 --> 00:18:58,900 Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was trying to remember, wasn't there a time when. 136 00:19:00,761 --> 00:19:10,486 You know 137 00:19:10,285 --> 00:19:18,849 That was a group of sushi 138 00:19:18,756 --> 00:19:27,158 Finally decided to be deceptive. I don't remember. Yeah. 139 00:19:27,561 --> 00:19:36,341 Hey, hey, hey, who knows? 140 00:19:36,869 --> 00:19:46,450 Well, I guess you'd have to go under the lanimac for false and misleading. You would. There's not a you could notify the FTC but there is no. 141 00:19:47,213 --> 00:19:49,646 Consumer damages. 142 00:19:49,949 --> 00:20:01,016 I do not believe. I'm not a no way to do a class action. Right, right. So, when there's no real money damn, I mean, you know, what did you spend on the album, right? 2030, bucks. 143 00:20:01,454 --> 00:20:10,774 Right what are the actual, 144 00:20:11,015 --> 00:20:20,317 Millions of people who bought the album. 145 00:20:20,746 --> 00:20:32,884 I personally love evil. 146 00:20:32,944 --> 00:20:38,384 For people who don't know who evil can able is he was a very famous, 147 00:20:38,517 --> 00:20:48,710 Daredevil motorcycle. 148 00:20:49,508 --> 00:20:59,621 Recollections is there anyone that even comes close to evil enable when it comes to, 149 00:20:59,807 --> 00:21:03,798 Other than his son who I think has taken up the mantle, 150 00:21:04,074 --> 00:21:12,125 Can you think of anybody? No, I I think he's. 151 00:21:12,617 --> 00:21:25,646 And he may be the only person in the category, 152 00:21:25,841 --> 00:21:30,490 Have seen the original toy story. Many, many, many, many times, 153 00:21:30,757 --> 00:21:45,577 I have not seen, 154 00:21:45,610 --> 00:21:52,095 Watch Toy Story four. 155 00:21:52,155 --> 00:22:02,420 Hey motorcycle daredevil stunt character in Walt Disney studios and pixars film toy story for. 156 00:22:03,579 --> 00:22:10,892 It's based on a figure from Canada who's a boisterous motorcycle riding daredevil 157 00:22:10,718 --> 00:22:14,243 And K and K or that's the allegation that K and K. 158 00:22:14,289 --> 00:22:21,298 Promotions who owns the rights to the American daredevil evil 159 00:22:21,259 --> 00:22:29,157 Disney studios saying that hey, 160 00:22:29,334 --> 00:22:35,972 And you saw merchandise with this character and his motorcycle and his flapping cape 161 00:22:35,843 --> 00:22:42,337 Behind him. You also violated the right of publicity under Nevada law. 162 00:22:42,163 --> 00:22:51,951 And so the district court dismissed the trademark action under the lanimac and the Nevada state law and then K and K who's evil can evils, 163 00:22:52,263 --> 00:23:02,691 Owns the right appeal to the ninth circuit. 164 00:23:03,327 --> 00:23:09,938 We apply the tests at fourth in Rogers Vega Maldi and we we've talked about Roger V. Grimaldi, mini, mini times. 165 00:23:10,457 --> 00:23:24,926 In the ninth circuit because there's a circuit split which I think is, 166 00:23:24,959 --> 00:23:31,132 Only comes into a fact after they've done the Rogers analysis, 167 00:23:31,384 --> 00:23:34,910 Two step which is one 168 00:23:34,907 --> 00:23:40,257 The use of the trademark is not artistically relevant to the work. 169 00:23:40,966 --> 00:23:48,521 Hey war that usage explicitly misleads consumers as to the source of the content of the work. 170 00:23:49,023 --> 00:24:01,179 So, the court looked at Duke Kaboom who if you look at it, his costuming is different. His facial expressions, he has facial hair. 171 00:24:01,608 --> 00:24:12,116 People can evil didn't have facial hair that's all different but the court did say there was artistic relevance which makes me wonder well maybe they found there was some similarity then. 172 00:24:12,753 --> 00:24:23,603 And then it went on to look at misleading, 173 00:24:23,609 --> 00:24:32,596 Evil Knievel did and to the extent which Disney. 174 00:24:33,350 --> 00:24:42,850 And that's really what they hung their hat on for that the characteristic, 175 00:24:43,081 --> 00:24:46,787 Well, evil. 176 00:24:46,868 --> 00:24:50,925 There's added significant expressive content. 177 00:24:51,372 --> 00:24:57,632 Which is different from evil by creating a character with a different name, appearance, and a different back story 178 00:24:57,566 --> 00:25:06,022 Disney did not in any way suggest that evil can evil was involved in toy Story four or was his name mentioned in the film and 179 00:25:05,821 --> 00:25:14,196 And for all of these reasons the court said that K and K did not stay the plausible claim that survives the Rogers test and dismissed, 180 00:25:14,445 --> 00:25:21,029 In the district court dismissed the landmark claims as to write a publicity under Nevada law. 181 00:25:21,575 --> 00:25:26,106 Disney claim that Duke was a transformative use. 182 00:25:26,364 --> 00:25:34,910 K and K claims that Disney violated the writer in and at the claimers bar the right of publicity claim. 183 00:25:36,150 --> 00:25:42,859 The court said they consider various factors to balance the dependence first amendment rights when the plains claimed right a publicity. 184 00:25:44,090 --> 00:25:49,281 So the court said these factors favor Disney because the Duke Kaboom action figures, 185 00:25:49,632 --> 00:25:53,995 More than a mirror lightness or literal depiction of evil canable. 186 00:25:54,640 --> 00:26:01,062 The character might be reminiscent of canable. So, this is where cameras interjecting cameras opinion again. 187 00:26:01,617 --> 00:26:05,518 I don't think there's anybody besides him. 188 00:26:05,785 --> 00:26:14,772 So, if I remember correctly, this character in the movie, you know, he's he's wearing motorcycle garb with a cape that has, you know, 189 00:26:14,859 --> 00:26:23,603 Stars in red, white, and blue motifs and those kinds of things. All those these portrayed as Canadian and the movie as well. So, but. 190 00:26:24,042 --> 00:26:28,464 You know so to me it feels a little bit like a trade dress kind of a vibe. 191 00:26:29,002 --> 00:26:43,480 So, I looked at the picture side by side. So, evil canable is famous for wearing a red, white, and blue. 192 00:26:46,070 --> 00:26:50,199 So, at the generic level or descriptive level, they're the same. 193 00:26:50,397 --> 00:26:56,039 But when you get into the actual detail of the two they're not. 194 00:26:57,458 --> 00:27:10,577 Let's just finish this the analysis so even if the character is generically reminiscent the district court properly concluded not a literal depiction and shares these general common features that are basic to stuntman, 195 00:27:10,754 --> 00:27:17,635 And then they look at the economic value of the toy action figure. 196 00:27:18,649 --> 00:27:28,276 But it reflects the success of the toy story franchise and it's popularity among children and frankly just the Disney brand. 197 00:27:28,777 --> 00:27:36,900 I think that's the right ruling. 198 00:27:37,788 --> 00:27:45,830 But for evil can evil would this character exist? 199 00:27:46,592 --> 00:27:53,842 Well, yeah, I mean, 200 00:27:54,181 --> 00:28:01,134 The people who were the first. 201 00:28:02,337 --> 00:28:06,025 No I mean it's almost like I mean I don't know who who is with the character, 202 00:28:06,070 --> 00:28:11,054 Woody based on. I mean, you know, is that for Rogers? 203 00:28:11,466 --> 00:28:19,039 You're right. I mean how far do we do we take this and they're probably other famous motorcycle riding dare devils who are, 204 00:28:19,145 --> 00:28:32,606 Nothing. Well, no, I'm not famous motorcycle riding there. That was. Let's talk about the Disney, the toy story a little bit more because there are some things in there that do raise some questions like the the toy dog that's a slinky. You know, the. Oh, 205 00:28:32,630 --> 00:28:41,716 Or the mister potato head character do the creators of those toys have brand rights that are. 206 00:28:43,001 --> 00:28:45,344 In order to be in those I suspect yeah. 207 00:28:45,935 --> 00:28:54,472 Although it's not a trademark use when you have mr potato head and missus Potato Head has characters in your movie, 208 00:28:54,794 --> 00:29:00,117 I think it is the exact same analysis but don't you think they went and got clearance from, 209 00:29:00,402 --> 00:29:05,467 Asborough or whoever owned those rights? 210 00:29:12,888 --> 00:29:15,667 This is not going to be because I don't think, 211 00:29:15,910 --> 00:29:21,443 This comes down against Disney. 212 00:29:22,115 --> 00:29:27,619 Right because in other jurisdictions they first say is there a likelihood of confusion? 213 00:29:28,048 --> 00:29:35,667 Bin, 214 00:29:35,835 --> 00:29:38,827 In the ninth circuit they do Rogers Veg Gramaldi, 215 00:29:39,103 --> 00:29:50,880 Then they do the analysis but I don't know that they've ever reached the likelihood of confusion analysis once they do Roger to be grammality so, 216 00:29:51,238 --> 00:29:53,050 I'm sure there have been cases that have gone. 217 00:29:53,623 --> 00:30:04,114 But have not met Rogers, 218 00:30:08,000 --> 00:30:11,454 Let's talk about epic and the dance move, 219 00:30:11,535 --> 00:30:17,968 Litigation back in April you may remember we we talked about professional choreographer Kyle Hamagami 220 00:30:17,776 --> 00:30:28,618 Who has worked with the likes of Britney Spears and in Saint and other pop superstars filed a copyright infringement suit against epic games another one of these lawsuits for ripping off an element of one of his dance routines, 221 00:30:28,966 --> 00:30:36,117 Hanagami whose choreography of the I don't know how to say Charlie's last name. Is it? Okay, Charlie Puth's song, how long? 222 00:30:36,438 --> 00:30:41,014 The video has over 35 1 million views on YouTube. 223 00:30:41,578 --> 00:30:47,163 This choreographer claimed that epicame stole the hook section of the dance for its 224 00:30:47,016 --> 00:30:57,668 It's complicated emote in Fortnite without its consent and emote is a dance move or other action that Fortnite players can purchase for their characters to perform within the game. 225 00:30:57,846 --> 00:31:05,996 So Anagami's choreography debuted in 2017 and the it's complicated emote was released in 2020, 226 00:31:06,083 --> 00:31:12,318 Lawyer showcased a video displaying the similarities between the choreography and this emote, 227 00:31:12,480 --> 00:31:15,430 And district court judge didn't buy it. Stephen Wilson 228 00:31:15,409 --> 00:31:20,213 The judge instead found that the two works didn't share enough creative elements, 229 00:31:20,393 --> 00:31:24,675 For the used to be considered infringement and dismissed the lawsuit 230 00:31:24,600 --> 00:31:34,695 Choreographic works are the subject to copper protection but the protection doesn't extend to social dance steps and simple routines. 231 00:31:35,052 --> 00:31:39,664 Even if they contain, 232 00:31:39,841 --> 00:31:49,377 Epic successfully argued that the moves in the two works were too generic to be protected by copyright and relied on some guidance from the copperhead office and in making that argument 233 00:31:49,312 --> 00:31:57,786 So Judge Wilson relied on the fact that the copper officer said previously rejected the claims regarding other dance moves they the floss and the carlton dance, 234 00:31:57,882 --> 00:32:04,276 But found protection for steps incorporated into larger bodies of work and the judge here said 235 00:32:04,246 --> 00:32:12,333 Epic cannot copied enough of Hanukkah's routine for it to be considered infringement so so it sounds like sort of a diminimus argument 236 00:32:12,249 --> 00:32:12,705 No. 237 00:32:12,840 --> 00:32:21,588 We've talked about the dance moves issue with Carlton when that was all came out back in episodes one 0510 7116 238 00:32:21,450 --> 00:32:31,184 And I did put into the show notes copyright office circular 52 which talks about the distinction between social dance 239 00:32:31,100 --> 00:32:33,894 And choreography that's. 240 00:32:34,377 --> 00:32:41,636 Protectable. Yeah. 241 00:32:42,218 --> 00:32:51,106 Dancing the Charleston or the Carlton, 242 00:32:51,355 --> 00:33:02,908 Probably, well, they are. The court has said they are not. That's social dances. So, I guess that means like the boost scooting boogie line dancing isn't protected. I know that we've talked about that before. 243 00:33:02,905 --> 00:33:11,640 What's interesting because you know in this instance the choreographer created the dance moves what created the dance, 244 00:33:11,970 --> 00:33:26,476 For use in a music video so it's in in the context of creating an artist working more like the drum robins work for for. 245 00:33:27,769 --> 00:33:33,213 It sounds here like Judge Wilson is saying, yeah, even so, it wasn't enough. It would, you know, this was. 246 00:33:33,591 --> 00:33:36,450 A social kind of lifting of a little tidbit. 247 00:33:37,627 --> 00:33:43,571 And I don't. 248 00:33:44,243 --> 00:33:52,168 They did a fair use analysis which to me would go into the you know the four prongs of how much of the hole did they take, 249 00:33:52,472 --> 00:34:04,718 They didn't I obviously they didn't feel like they needed to get to the fair use analysis, 250 00:34:04,976 --> 00:34:11,604 Sort of. 251 00:34:12,790 --> 00:34:22,623 Not copyed enough, 252 00:34:22,989 --> 00:34:30,617 To justify this loss. Yeah. That sounds pretty interesting. 253 00:34:30,362 --> 00:34:43,553 Are we back today? It's okay to take six bars. Yeah. No. Okay. That is not a true statement. 254 00:34:44,154 --> 00:34:48,298 Well what's going on with the purple rain. 255 00:34:48,763 --> 00:35:01,198 This was just interesting for a lot of reasons that I went down a rabbit trail but the princess state prevails on trademark litigation at the trademark trial and appeals board over. 256 00:35:01,699 --> 00:35:08,787 Purple rain both the registered and unregistered aspects of purple rain, 257 00:35:08,856 --> 00:35:17,771 Enterprises because they own kinda different parts of the equation one owning the 258 00:35:17,669 --> 00:35:27,880 Right to publicity the other owning a trademarks. 259 00:35:31,935 --> 00:35:37,630 B A N G is the maker of energy drinks and diet supplements. 260 00:35:38,149 --> 00:35:43,148 Who I guess JHO is their parent company sought to register the mark purple rain 261 00:35:43,010 --> 00:35:57,282 I'll know USPTO, 262 00:35:57,351 --> 00:36:05,636 Caffeinated supplements you would put into 263 00:36:05,552 --> 00:36:15,998 Dieter supplements rather than beverages for some reason. No. 264 00:36:16,409 --> 00:36:29,924 So this company that defendant is known for its ticktock and YouTube collaborations boasting over 18 1 billion views on TikTok, 265 00:36:30,218 --> 00:36:40,592 Hey application for purple rain in class five for dietary supplements paisley park who owns the rights in the NIL 266 00:36:40,463 --> 00:36:54,437 Prince Rogers Nelson, 267 00:36:54,497 --> 00:36:57,201 Also known as Bang. 268 00:36:58,431 --> 00:37:08,274 So let me give you a little history before it gets, 269 00:37:08,433 --> 00:37:11,128 Dietary supplements. 270 00:37:12,007 --> 00:37:19,986 And it it had some other issues unrelated to confusion with the with purple rain in France. It actually got, 271 00:37:20,217 --> 00:37:27,530 Held up because it was confused with a feed supplement, 272 00:37:27,599 --> 00:37:33,912 And in addition to the ongoing issues with Purple Rain Monster energy drink has also 273 00:37:33,729 --> 00:37:50,296 Filed claim against these guys. They've got a lot of issues happening. So, anyway, it was raised as a purple rain and princess mark raised likelihood of consumer confusion, delusion, faucet of a connection to Prince, 274 00:37:50,203 --> 00:38:02,278 So, at the TTAB, you know, they are raising common law claims so they can present common law evidence. In addition to their registered trademark usage. 275 00:38:03,563 --> 00:38:05,645 Purple rain what does it bring to mine, 276 00:38:05,714 --> 00:38:20,625 Princess iconic album 13 times platinum 15 1 million copy sold in the US 25 1 million in the world all of the awards that go with the album the recognition by the library of congress recognition of the fame 277 00:38:20,550 --> 00:38:27,206 143 rank number 143 on rolling stones list of 500 greatest songs 278 00:38:26,996 --> 00:38:46,650 The motion picture the academy award for the best original score for the motion picture 279 00:38:46,432 --> 00:38:56,643 And then I did a survey in 80% of people said they're familiar with Purple Rain and 66. Three% said oh he said purple rain, 280 00:38:56,820 --> 00:39:01,108 That must be Prince the song or movie it's all about Prince so. 281 00:39:01,519 --> 00:39:14,567 The expert witness the phrase purple rain has high recognition among the general consuming public and a substantial majority of respondents as expressly associated phrase with the artist prints his song or movie, 282 00:39:14,573 --> 00:39:22,570 So, you know, lots of evidence connecting it to Prince. 283 00:39:24,430 --> 00:39:36,775 You know, they had to show that purple rain. There was approximation of that use with princess name and identity. 284 00:39:36,700 --> 00:39:41,826 But then are they the opposers are not connected with the good sold by applicants so, 285 00:39:42,183 --> 00:39:53,105 The prince camp is not associated with the good sold by this Jay Joe company, 286 00:39:53,382 --> 00:40:02,018 I don't know. I feel like we went a long way down the path to say we all think that. 287 00:40:02,411 --> 00:40:10,750 You know, you're you're crossing a line. 288 00:40:11,143 --> 00:40:20,895 Sad and that there was plenty of unreview unrebutted evidence as to Princess Fame. 289 00:40:21,289 --> 00:40:24,379 And. 290 00:40:25,078 --> 00:40:39,062 Hey consumers would it as soon a connection between purple rain and France okay I think this was clearly decided I went back and said okay if I was the examining attorney at the PTO. 291 00:40:40,085 --> 00:40:42,465 I don't know what all. 292 00:40:43,344 --> 00:40:53,808 NPG your paisley park has filed registrations related to purple rain obviously they gonna have them for class nine probably. 293 00:40:54,390 --> 00:40:55,239 Class, 294 00:40:55,398 --> 00:41:09,021 25 which is clothing so we're reported product entertainment services clothing. 295 00:41:10,126 --> 00:41:15,557 I don't know from an examination standpoint is an energy drink. 296 00:41:16,319 --> 00:41:20,976 Hey. 297 00:41:22,144 --> 00:41:26,909 Cheap purple rain but yet had it been for Nike, 298 00:41:27,230 --> 00:41:33,535 Well, that's interesting. Do the examining attorneys have the discretion to decide on their own that, 299 00:41:33,604 --> 00:41:45,418 A brand that's not registered in a class that's you know related goods is a famous enough brand I I guess they could I don't know if they can make that decision on saying it doesn't. 300 00:41:46,063 --> 00:41:56,679 I don't know. So so that's, 301 00:41:57,001 --> 00:42:06,960 Hey supplements and obviously the paisley park camp doesn't think purple rain feeds supplements were an issue or maybe it's been on the registry for a long time, 302 00:42:07,029 --> 00:42:15,395 They are also fighting a battle on another front against monster energy drinks because they have a line of energy drinks with rain or. 303 00:42:16,563 --> 00:42:26,171 Oh Paisley Park and I hope, 304 00:42:26,537 --> 00:42:31,743 Because of using rain in their drink supplement. 305 00:42:32,182 --> 00:42:37,694 Interesting just this whole file there's over 450. 306 00:42:38,267 --> 00:42:43,428 Wow. Not for purple rain but filed by this JHO. Okay, so there, 307 00:42:43,794 --> 00:42:55,761 A big IP. Well, holding company is the name. I guess so. Most of them are filed as intent to use. 308 00:42:56,002 --> 00:43:05,349 The question it raises for me is and I don't know this answer and I need to go check is can the examining attorney like you said raise a claim. 309 00:43:06,129 --> 00:43:10,759 I know they can organize it raise a claim on related good so this tells me. 310 00:43:11,449 --> 00:43:16,871 925 and 41 is not automatically related goods to class. 311 00:43:17,841 --> 00:43:23,479 Five which is diamonds supplements I don't think it and then I don't think I necessarily would be either. 312 00:43:24,071 --> 00:43:32,230 Do you think that it cuz I I just looked at the at the website for bang and most of their products are sold in cans so they're fluid. 313 00:43:32,614 --> 00:43:42,528 Do you think that the decision to register to apply for the registration in the dieter supplement class rather than the beverages class was a. 314 00:43:44,515 --> 00:43:48,326 Calculated decision. 315 00:43:48,224 --> 00:44:01,046 Looking at all of the filings I've made I don't think you just calculated but that's my yeah I mean and if if the examining attorneys have thought it was in the wrong class they would have done something about that as well so, 316 00:44:01,061 --> 00:44:08,364 And it was found as an intention to use, 317 00:44:08,506 --> 00:44:13,325 Powder dietary supplements but they submitted a can they would have said. 318 00:44:13,871 --> 00:44:27,044 Yeah. 319 00:44:27,321 --> 00:44:33,418 And, 320 00:44:33,775 --> 00:44:42,204 Hey. 321 00:44:44,065 --> 00:44:49,730 Hundreds. I didn't look at all but the 400 something filings this company has made. 322 00:44:50,060 --> 00:44:59,867 Do i think they picked purple rain intentionally. 323 00:45:00,638 --> 00:45:06,195 Oh, it's interesting. Hey, I think they just been following a lot of stuff and seeing what sticks. Interesting. 324 00:45:07,066 --> 00:45:16,953 Do we see another case by the Hendrix estate or proposed. 325 00:45:17,373 --> 00:45:20,599 Things. You know, we we don't know. We don't know and I don't wanna. 326 00:45:21,181 --> 00:45:30,222 Maybe I shouldn't be. Oh, interesting. 327 00:45:30,318 --> 00:45:42,753 Been on the wrong the receiving end of of a decision that probably doesn't make a very happy you may recall that we've talked about this case a little bit before Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, 328 00:45:42,778 --> 00:45:50,000 Are suing Taylor Swift. We first talked about this in 2019. 329 00:45:50,844 --> 00:45:58,480 They have filed suit against Taylor Swift for the use of the the common phrase is what shake it off, 330 00:45:58,676 --> 00:46:04,566 Yeah, she just can't shake this one off. Right. 331 00:46:05,085 --> 00:46:11,461 Anyway, this is the the they had filed this suit back in 2019. 332 00:46:11,765 --> 00:46:21,931 Made a motion the case was dismissed by the judge judge Gerald before being reversed by the ninth circuit court of appeals which deemed the issue of originality 333 00:46:21,919 --> 00:46:25,109 Is still a matter of fact for the case to for the 334 00:46:25,106 --> 00:46:32,842 Judge Edward for the jury in the finder fact to decide and so that the lower courts dismissal of the matter has now been overturned. 335 00:46:32,794 --> 00:46:40,755 Then Taylor Swift tried to get another dismissal claiming that even with additional evidence and discovery the plan is claims were still baseless. 336 00:46:40,716 --> 00:46:43,942 And the court has again ruled no, 337 00:46:44,056 --> 00:46:52,656 This is going to trial. Starting in 2023 and ultimately, the jury gets to decide whether players gonna play in haters gonna hate. 338 00:46:52,932 --> 00:47:07,069 Is a sufficiently so it's not shaking off it's the players gonna play and haters gonna hate quotes. 339 00:47:07,894 --> 00:47:11,182 But it's in the song shake it off yes correct. 340 00:47:12,269 --> 00:47:21,103 So we'll we'll have more to report but procedureally it's been interesting has gone back and forth. A couple of times and we'll be looking for what happens at trial. 341 00:47:21,586 --> 00:47:22,804 Next year sometime. 342 00:47:24,071 --> 00:47:33,625 Okay 343 00:47:33,622 --> 00:47:46,877 You may recall this is the case's net choice LLC versus Ken Paxton in his official capacity as the attorney general of the state of Texas and the case cases heard in the US quarter of appeals for the fifth circuit. 344 00:47:47,027 --> 00:47:58,471 Net choice and the computer and communications industry association are two trade associations that represent companies operating platforms covered by Texas' law HB 20. 345 00:47:58,532 --> 00:48:06,312 They sued the state attorney general back in September of 2021, 346 00:48:06,553 --> 00:48:16,080 The statue. 347 00:48:16,536 --> 00:48:23,012 And the law plays to social media platforms that have more than 50 1 million monthly active users, 348 00:48:23,180 --> 00:48:32,176 Function as common carriers are affected with a public interest are central public forms for public debate and have enjoyed governmental support in the US 349 00:48:32,110 --> 00:48:41,439 The Texas legislature further found that social media platforms with the largest number of users are common carriers by virtue of their market dominance. 350 00:48:41,752 --> 00:48:53,016 The two sections of the statue that issue or section seven and section two section seven says a social media platform may not centre the user users expression or users' ability to receive the expression of others, 351 00:48:53,049 --> 00:48:54,799 Based on viewpoint. 352 00:48:54,922 --> 00:49:07,690 Represented the viewpoint of the user or person. 353 00:49:08,155 --> 00:49:09,608 Section two 354 00:49:09,524 --> 00:49:22,049 Says the platforms must allow certain disclosure and operational provisions. They have to disclose how they moderate and promote content and publish and acceptable use policy, a biannual transparency report. 355 00:49:21,893 --> 00:49:30,042 Anime must maintain a complaint and appeal system for their users. 356 00:49:30,238 --> 00:49:38,010 2021 issued a preliminary injunction finding that both sections of the statute are facially unconstitutional, 357 00:49:38,070 --> 00:49:42,502 And that HB 20 falls fails on any level of hidden scrutiny 358 00:49:42,499 --> 00:49:53,781 They reasoned that undersection seven platforms engage in some level of editorial discretion by managing an arranging content and viewpoint based censorship is part of that editorial discretion. 359 00:49:54,211 --> 00:50:04,593 Add further help that the editorial discretion is protected by cases like the Miami Herald Publishing versus Tornillo from 1974 Spring Court case that with section two, 360 00:50:04,725 --> 00:50:15,774 The disrecord found that the disclosure and operational provisions are inordinately burdened some given the unfamically unfathomably large numbers of posts on the sites and apps. 361 00:50:15,852 --> 00:50:23,111 And moreover that section two will chill social media platform speech by. 362 00:50:23,531 --> 00:50:29,638 So Texas filed an appeal back in May there was a stay of the preliminary injunction, 363 00:50:29,968 --> 00:50:38,073 And on May 31 the Supreme Court vacated this day, 364 00:50:38,268 --> 00:50:47,426 The platforms are back in court in the fifth circuit. 365 00:50:47,999 --> 00:50:55,294 First the court rejects the platform's facial over breath challenge because section seven doesn't chill speech if anything it chills censorship. 366 00:50:55,867 --> 00:51:05,124 It's an interesting distinction. 367 00:51:05,608 --> 00:51:16,071 And the supreme following supreme supreme court president the court says section seven doesn't regulate the platform speech at all it protects other people's speech and regulates the platform's conduct. 368 00:51:16,780 --> 00:51:20,743 Distinguishing conduct from speech. That's interesting. 369 00:51:21,110 --> 00:51:30,727 And they say section 230 of the of the communication season see accurate reflexes judgment that the platforms are not speaking when they host other people's speech. 370 00:51:33,497 --> 00:51:46,355 And they look at the the common carrier doctrine which gives the Texas legislature the power to prevent the platforms from discriminating against Texas users and finally even if all that is wrong in section seven does regulate platform speech. 371 00:51:46,415 --> 00:51:50,586 It satisfies the intermediate scrutiny that applies to content neutral rules. 372 00:51:51,348 --> 00:52:01,082 Astro section two the platforms argue that they're entitled to pre enforcement relief against section two of HB 20 but the court disagreed finding that, 373 00:52:01,188 --> 00:52:15,405 Section two requires platforms make certain disclosures that are purely factual uncontroversial information about their services and the fifth circuit said that their review of these disclosure requirements is controlled by this supreme court's decision in the, 374 00:52:15,754 --> 00:52:17,242 Zauderer case. 375 00:52:17,806 --> 00:52:31,051 Having trouble with pronunciation today. 376 00:52:31,507 --> 00:52:40,341 And the Texas law are dissimilar in many legally relevant ways much of the 11 circuit reasoning is less consistent with or irrelevant to 377 00:52:40,267 --> 00:52:43,681 Our resolution of the platforms claims. So, the circuit, 378 00:52:43,769 --> 00:52:57,347 The fifth circuit held that the law is constitutional because it neither compels nor obstructs the platform's own speech in any way and the preliminary injury injunction is vacated. So, 379 00:52:57,335 --> 00:53:03,009 And Daniel yeah maybe there's a distinction between the two laws but what do you think. 380 00:53:04,591 --> 00:53:09,095 So it it's interesting that it didn't make a whole lot of. 381 00:53:09,623 --> 00:53:22,418 Local news maybe. Oh interesting. 382 00:53:22,559 --> 00:53:27,864 A whole lot. 383 00:53:28,285 --> 00:53:33,149 Hey. 384 00:53:35,154 --> 00:53:39,649 Do the platforms just don't want people to tell them what to do. 385 00:53:40,231 --> 00:53:46,940 Well the platforms want to maintain their freedom and ability to deep platform a user who is, 386 00:53:47,181 --> 00:53:56,537 Misbehaving their view to, 387 00:53:56,561 --> 00:54:06,448 In the view of the platform in either inappropriate or contain what's possibly misinformation or you know those kinds of this is all in the wake of, 388 00:54:06,751 --> 00:54:15,108 You know, the the, well, G platforming Trump. 389 00:54:16,087 --> 00:54:23,859 So, I, this is where I just don't know enough about all the. 390 00:54:25,134 --> 00:54:27,540 20 391 00:54:28,996 --> 00:54:37,038 Why? 392 00:54:37,809 --> 00:54:41,575 For the platform to add comment to this page. 393 00:54:42,193 --> 00:54:50,658 Which didn't become the platforms. 394 00:54:51,340 --> 00:54:58,860 This communication stream that we make public unavailable to our users is our. 395 00:54:59,685 --> 00:55:09,797 The content that we're putting out there. 396 00:55:10,334 --> 00:55:19,925 Yeah, I don't get to make a TV show in NBC to put it on their network. 397 00:55:20,318 --> 00:55:33,995 But if I'm if I'm a social media company apparently under this law. 398 00:55:34,623 --> 00:55:42,277 You can't stop them. 399 00:55:43,616 --> 00:55:45,059 Some otherwise. 400 00:55:46,118 --> 00:55:55,330 So, let's say it was something that was promoting. Well, maybe that's maybe a hate speech statutes and things like that. Hate speech or terrorist statue thing. 401 00:55:55,328 --> 00:56:01,722 With a wow or pornography statute. Yeah. That would allow that extent to be, 402 00:56:02,016 --> 00:56:07,691 Pull down but I'm I'm not familiar with it enough to know but my. 403 00:56:08,102 --> 00:56:15,000 My 404 00:56:15,934 --> 00:56:24,516 It's just the taking it down that's the issue. 405 00:56:26,170 --> 00:56:33,878 Legitimacy or the accuracy. 406 00:56:36,369 --> 00:56:43,124 Maybe not. I mean, it depends on how the law defines that term I suppose. 407 00:56:43,427 --> 00:56:55,565 What in a what? Well, 408 00:56:55,949 --> 00:57:10,077 And they have to the the other section that disclosure about how they moderate and promote content and the publishing that biannual transparency report is you know he give us the ammunition to come after you. 409 00:57:12,540 --> 00:57:21,158 Right so we're kinda telling you everything you need to know to 410 00:57:20,948 --> 00:57:27,199 Yeah hey we put all these messages over here or we put this little logo next to them to to 411 00:57:27,034 --> 00:57:37,317 To flag but hey, this may be controversial or this is a trigger warning for certain people. Those kinds of things. That may be enough to be considered censorship because there's a stigma attached to. 412 00:57:37,756 --> 00:57:47,139 A message that has that trigger warning on it, 413 00:57:47,199 --> 00:57:59,868 Well, I mean, I think it's interesting the two states that have passed these bills. Yeah, just some, this is some commentary I at the end of it, 414 00:57:59,955 --> 00:58:04,009 Platforms for removing quote offensively. Violent material. 415 00:58:03,934 --> 00:58:14,280 Or penalizing companies for blocking criminal activity. 416 00:58:17,087 --> 00:58:27,784 Slippery slope that it's setting this up. 417 00:58:28,177 --> 00:58:35,076 You know how I'm, 418 00:58:35,442 --> 00:58:46,743 Yeah that common carrier idea and, 419 00:58:47,055 --> 00:58:49,867 Quite as as a. 420 00:58:50,260 --> 00:59:00,120 Town but. 421 00:59:00,675 --> 00:59:07,385 There is a, 422 00:59:07,571 --> 00:59:14,128 Or closer to a common carrier than AA content service like Facebook or for that matter Netflix, 423 00:59:14,422 --> 00:59:24,309 Okay, did we decide? Did we? 424 00:59:25,081 --> 00:59:26,533 Oh goodness I don't. 425 00:59:27,079 --> 00:59:36,831 I don't recall. 426 00:59:37,450 --> 00:59:41,810 You know it's certainly seems to me that that. 427 00:59:42,212 --> 00:59:51,658 Companies these platforms are doing business in interstate commerce. 428 00:59:52,349 --> 01:00:02,218 What they do need to carry and what they don't remember the must carry laws and and, 429 01:00:02,386 --> 01:00:05,279 And those were all lifted mostly, 430 01:00:05,537 --> 01:00:13,669 I think voltarily would you know without court rulings that they were in constitutional but. 431 01:00:15,007 --> 01:00:22,095 It does seem like for speech to me. Yeah. The the court here says no it's not. We're just forcing him not to censor. 432 01:00:22,488 --> 01:00:31,907 But seems to me that the decision of what to carry and what not to is speech. 433 01:00:32,346 --> 01:00:44,898 Appeal. 434 01:00:45,093 --> 01:00:53,009 Hey Facebook, 435 01:00:53,375 --> 01:01:00,490 Miss Vera what was your name? 436 01:01:01,666 --> 01:01:07,286 Yeah, it's gonna be set up for an allegedly professional plaintiff is gonna be suing. 437 01:01:07,607 --> 01:01:16,559 Well I think we still have grounds for an appeal at this level you know there there is a case in controversy and there's this a, 438 01:01:16,736 --> 01:01:21,600 A splitter authority so it's it's ripe for supreme court action it's just a question of. 439 01:01:22,443 --> 01:01:32,790 You know, how when does that happen and is it an appeal from this or yes? You said, maybe somebody has to sue on. Is this a civil right of action? 440 01:01:33,579 --> 01:01:43,016 Well, again, kinda like that. FTC thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 441 01:01:48,820 --> 01:01:58,401 We have one more quick quick take for you just to let you know if anybody is in the DC area you may want to check out this exhibit on the fourth floor, 442 01:01:58,452 --> 01:02:03,740 Of the James Madison Memorial building in DC 443 01:02:03,719 --> 01:02:19,844 An exhibit on the history of the copyright office and putting a number of exhibits and artifacts on display including materials from Mark Twain's catalog cards and the i have a dream speech to kermit the frog and video games like Super Mario Brothers if you can't go in person you can check it out on the 444 01:02:19,599 --> 01:02:28,658 On the exhibits website I found pretty interesting they actually had a an image of the very first. 445 01:02:29,591 --> 01:02:36,499 Oh, that's cool. Yeah, which was like a handbiller something. 446 01:02:36,928 --> 01:02:39,938 If you poke around@populate. Gov, 447 01:02:40,052 --> 01:02:53,567 And get into the old files. 448 01:02:53,807 --> 01:02:59,977 Filings. Mm hmm. We were trying to find something from the 50s or 60s and low and behold. 449 01:03:00,586 --> 01:03:07,430 We found we found the original copyright. Card, card catalog card. Wow. 450 01:03:07,761 --> 01:03:19,133 That's cool. 451 01:03:19,581 --> 01:03:22,518 Yeah. Interesting. 452 01:03:22,840 --> 01:03:32,808 Well, 453 01:03:32,823 --> 01:03:47,698 But let's say thank you to you our loyal listeners for spending your time with us and if you have any feedback and we we welcome it leave it for us on the voice widget on the website at Entertainment Law update. Com or you can email it to us entertainment law update at Gmail dot, 454 01:03:47,821 --> 01:03:54,332 Or tweet. 455 01:03:54,609 --> 01:04:02,398 Yeah, and I think we, I don't know if we have an entertainment law, update handle for Instagram, but we're both on on there as well. So, 456 01:04:02,215 --> 01:04:18,260 And LinkedIn so anyway folks can find me 457 01:04:18,185 --> 01:04:27,713 Dot com. 458 01:04:27,728 --> 01:04:40,343 G Firemark is where you'll find me on most social media websites so 459 01:04:40,223 --> 01:04:43,116 Brenna Arbuckle carnivalson and David Tobus 460 01:04:43,050 --> 01:04:54,486 All helpless with putting these episodes together and we thank them we're a grateful for that help, 461 01:04:54,798 --> 01:04:57,825 And. 462 01:04:57,680 --> 01:05:26,422 Music.